Ms. Breitman says she enrolled in ACS' program "Checkmate II,"which ACS said would be used to deduct loan payments from her bank"as of the assigned due date each month."

ACS "represented to borrowers that Checkmate II was the mostconvenient way to make their student loan account payments. ACSsaid 'You will save time and money, as well as eliminate thehassle of writing checks,'" the complaint states.

But Ms. Breitman claims the Checkmate II terms and conditionsfalsely claim: "Please note that prepayments, defined asadditional payments received on your loan(s) greater than theregular installment or the amount due, will not satisfyinstallments or prevent the next month's debit."

The terms are misleading because they hide from borrowers "themanner in which prepayments would be applied to their loans,"according to the complaint. It claims prepayment would not beapplied immediately to reduce the principal of borrowers' loans inaddition to their monthly Checkmate II payment -- instead, ACS"misapplied prepayment specifically to keep borrowers in debt tomaximize the amount of interest paid over the life of the loans."

ACS applies prepayments "to satisfy future installments, toprevent the next month's debt, but often do not reduce principal,"the class claims.

Ms. Breitman says the defendants also falsely claimed that ifborrowers made 36 consecutive loan payments they would qualify foran "On-Time Payment Benefit," which included a 1 percent ratereduction.

She seeks class certification and treble damages for breach ofcontract.

ASSISTED LIVING: Wohl & Fruchter Files Class Action in Wisconsin----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Wohl & Fruchter LLP on Aug. 29 disclosed that ithas filed a class action lawsuit in the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of investorswho purchased Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. Class A common stockduring the period between March 12, 2011 and August 6, 2012.

If you purchased ALC stock during the Class Period, and wish toserve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60days from August 29, 2012. If you wish to discuss this action, orhave any questions concerning this notice or your rights, pleasecontact plaintiff's counsel, J. Elazar Fruchter, at 866-582-8140or 845-425-4658, or via e-mail at jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve aslead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose todo nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges ALC and its former Chief Executive Officerwith violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Thecomplaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issuedmaterially false and misleading statements, and omitted materialinformation concerning ALC's compliance with its obligations undera lease covering eight assisted living facilities operated by ALC.Under the terms of the lease, ALC was obligated to maintainspecified occupancy rates and insure all regulatory licensesremained in good standing. In its quarterly and annual SECfilings, ALC confirmed its compliance with these obligations.

Undisclosed to investors, however, there is substantial evidencethat during the Class Period, ALC failed to maintain the specifiedoccupancy rates and concealed this fact by treating units leasedto employees as bona fide rentals. Also undisclosed to investorsuntil revealed in a lawsuit filed by the landlord, stateregulators in Georgia and Alabama served notices in February andMarch 2012 of their intent to revoke licenses for three of thefacilities, further violating the lease.

In early May 2012, the audit committee of ALC's board of directorslaunched an investigation after receiving an internalwhistleblower complaint concerning "possible irregularities inconnection with" the lease, and on June 21, 2012, ALC settled withthe landlord, causing ALC to incur a net loss of $19.5 million forthe first six months of 2012 -- an amount close to ALC's entirenet income in 2011.

On August 7, 2012, ALC announced that it was the subject of an SECinvestigation concerning a number of topics, including "compliancewith occupancy covenants" under the lease and the "leasing ofunits for employee use."

Upon this news, ALC shares fell over 26 percent to close at $7.89per share on August 7, 2012, representing a loss of shareholdervalue of over $51 million.

The plaintiff is represented by Wohl & Fruchter LLP, anexperienced securities litigation firm representing plaintiffs inclass actions arising from fraud and other fiduciary breaches bycorporate managers, as well as other complex litigation matters.

ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Got Prelim. OK of Overdraft Fees Suit Deal----------------------------------------------------------------A $13 million settlement of claims brought against a subsidiary ofAssociated Banc-Corp was preliminarily approved in July 2012,according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedJune 30, 2012.

A lawsuit, Harris v. Associated Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), was filedin the United States District Court for the Western District ofWisconsin in April 2010. The lawsuit alleges that the Bankunfairly assesses and collects overdraft fees and seeksrestitution of the overdraft fees, compensatory, consequential andpunitive damages, and costs. The lawsuit asserts claims for amulti-year period and is styled as a putative class action lawsuiton behalf of consumer banking customers of the Bank with thecertification of the class pending. In April 2010, a MultiDistrict Judicial Panel issued a conditional transfer order toconsolidate this case into the Multi District Litigation ("MDL"),In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation MDL No. 2036 in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.The Bank is a member, along with many other banking institutions,of the Fourth Tranche of defendants in this case. A settlementagreement which requires payment by the Bank of $13 million for afull and complete release of all claims brought against the Bankreceived preliminary approval from the court on July 26, 2012. Inthe second quarter of 2012, the Bank settled with an insurer for$2.5 million as contribution to the settlement amount and receivedapproximately $1.5 million as partial reimbursement for defensecosts. By entering into such an agreement, the Company has notadmitted any liability with respect to the lawsuit. Thesettlement is a result of the Company's evaluation of the cost offully litigating the matter and the time and expense of resourcesneeded to administer the litigation. The settlement amount waspreviously accrued for in the financial statements.

Founded in 1964 and headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin,Associated Banc-Corp -- http://www.associatedbank.com-- a bank holding company, offers various banking and financial services toindividuals and businesses primarily in Wisconsin, Illinois, andMinnesota.

AT&T INC: Awaits Approval of Wage and Hour Suit Settlement----------------------------------------------------------AT&T Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement of wage andhour class action lawsuits, according to the Company'sAugust 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Two wage and hour cases were filed in federal court in December2009 each asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act(Luque et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al., U.S. District Court in theNorthern District of California) (Lawson et al. v. BellSouthTelecommunications, Inc., U.S. District Court in the NorthernDistrict of Georgia). Luque also alleges violations of aCalifornia wage and hour law, which varies from the federal law.In each case, plaintiffs allege that certain groups of wirelinesupervisory managers were entitled to paid overtime and seek classaction status as well as damages, attorneys' fees and/orpenalties. Plaintiffs have been granted conditional collectiveaction status for their federal claims and also are expected toseek class action status for their state law claims. The Companyhas contested the collective and class action treatment of theclaims, the merits of the claims and the method of calculatingdamages for the claims. A jury verdict was entered in favor ofthe Company in October 2011 in the U.S. District Court inConnecticut on similar FLSA claims.

In April 2012, the Company settled these cases, subject to courtapproval, on terms that will not have a material effect on theCompany's financial statements.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T is one of the 30 stocks that make upthe Dow Jones Industrial Average.

AT&T INC: No Appeal Pending in NSA-Related Suits------------------------------------------------AT&T Inc. disclosed in its August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedJune 30, 2012, that there are no more appeals pending in thelawsuits alleging it provided assistance to the National SecurityAgency in connection with intelligence activities.

Twenty-four lawsuits were filed alleging that the Company andother telecommunications carriers unlawfully provided assistanceto the National Security Agency in connection with intelligenceactivities that were initiated following the events ofSeptember 11, 2001. In the first filed case, Hepting et al v.AT&T Corp., AT&T Inc. and Does 1-20, a purported class actionfiled in U.S. District Court in the Northern District ofCalifornia, plaintiffs alleged that the defendants disclosed andare currently disclosing to the U.S. Government content and callrecords concerning communications to which Plaintiffs were aparty. Plaintiffs sought damages, a declaratory judgment andinjunctive relief for violations of the First and FourthAmendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Actand other federal and California statutes. The Company filed amotion to dismiss the complaint. The United States asserted the"state secrets privilege" and related statutory privileges andalso filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the complaint.The court denied the motions, and the Company and the UnitedStates appealed. In August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court withoutdeciding the issue in light of the passage of the FISA AmendmentsAct, a provision of which addresses the allegations in thesepending lawsuits (immunity provision). The immunity provisionrequires the pending lawsuits to be dismissed if the AttorneyGeneral certifies to the court either that the alleged assistancewas undertaken by court order, certification, directive or writtenrequest or that the telecom entity did not provide the allegedassistance.

In September 2008, the Attorney General filed his certificationand asked the district court to dismiss all of the lawsuitspending against the AT&T Inc. telecommunications companies. Thecourt granted the Government's motion to dismiss and entered finaljudgments in July 2009. In addition, a lawsuit seeking to enjointhe immunity provision's application on grounds that it isunconstitutional was filed. In March 2009, the Company and theGovernment filed motions to dismiss this lawsuit. The courtgranted the motion to dismiss and entered final judgment in July2009. All cases brought against the AT&T entities have beendismissed. In August 2009, plaintiffs in all cases filed anappeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In December 2011,the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals in allcases.

In March 2012, the Plaintiffs in all but three cases filed apetition for writ of certiorari with the United States SupremeCourt. The plaintiffs in two of the three cases filed petitionsfor rehearing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, both ofwhich have been denied. The plaintiffs in the third case did notfile a petition in either court.

Management believes that any further appeal is without merit andintends to continue to defend these matters vigorously.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T is one of the 30 stocks that make upthe Dow Jones Industrial Average.

AT&T INC: Writ of Certiorari Petition Pending in "Stoffels" Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Stoffels v. SBCCommunications Inc. filed a petition for a writ of certiorari inthe U.S. Supreme Court in July 2012, according to AT&T Inc.'sAugust 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

In May 2005, the Company was served with a purported class actionin U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (Stoffels v. SBCCommunications Inc.), in which the plaintiffs, who are retirees ofPacific Bell Telephone Company, Southwestern Bell and Ameritech,contend that the cash reimbursement formerly paid to retireesliving outside their company's local service area, for telephoneservice they purchased from another provider, is a "definedbenefit plan" within the meaning of the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). In October 2006, thecourt certified two classes. In May 2008, the court ruled thatthe concession was an ERISA pension plan. In May 2009, theCompany filed a motion for reconsideration with the trial court.That motion was granted in January 2011, and a final judgment wasentered in the Company's favor. Plaintiffs appealed the judgmentto the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and in April 2012, the FifthCircuit affirmed the lower court's judgment in the Company's favordismissing the case.

On July 16, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ ofcertiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T is one of the 30 stocks that make upthe Dow Jones Industrial Average.

AT&T INC: Unit Still Defends "MBA Surety" Suit in Missouri----------------------------------------------------------In October 2010, AT&T Inc.'s wireless subsidiary was served with apurported class action in Circuit Court, Cole County, Missouri(MBA Surety Agency, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC), in which theplaintiffs contend that the Company violated the FederalCommunications Commission's rules by collecting Universal ServiceFees on certain services not subject to such fees, includingInternet access service provided over wireless handsets commonlycalled "smartphones" and wireless data cards, as well ascollecting certain other state and local fees. Plaintiffs definethe class as all persons who from April 1, 2003, until the presenthad a contractual relationship with the Company for Internetaccess through a smartphone or a wireless data card. Plaintiffsseek an unspecified amount of damages as well as injunctiverelief. The Company believes that an adverse outcome having amaterial effect on its financial statements in this case isunlikely.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 3, 2012,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T is one of the 30 stocks that make upthe Dow Jones Industrial Average.

The replacement battery pack can explode unexpectedly, posing arisk of injury to consumers.

BatteriesPlus has received three additional reports since theprevious recall of exploding batteries, including one report of aninjury to a consumer's finger.

This recall involves all RAYOVAC-branded replacement battery packsused with cordless power tools and have part numbers beginningwith "CTL." "RAYOVAC," "NI-CD" or "RAYOVAC," "NI-MH" and a partnumber beginning with "CTL" are printed in white lettering on theproduct. The battery packs were sold in voltages ranging between2.4 and 18 volts in various sizes and shapes. They were sold asreplacement batteries to the following brand tools: Black andDecker, Bosch, DeWalt, Makita, Lincoln, Milwaukee, Panasonic,Ryobi and Skil. Pictures of the recalled products are availableat:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and soldexclusively at BatteriesPlus retail stores nationwide and onlineat www.batteriesplus.com between June 2008 and July 2012 forbetween $60 and $70.

Consumers should immediately stop using and remove the batterypacks from cordless tools. Consumers can contact BatteriesPlusfor instructions on how to return the product for a store credit.For more information, contact BatteriesPlus toll-free at (877)856-3232 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Central Time Mondaythrough Friday, or visit the firm's Web site athttp://www.batteriesplus.com/and click on Recall Notices/Bulletins at the bottom of the page.

BRAND NEW: Recalls All Lot Codes of Dietary Supplement EphBurn 25-----------------------------------------------------------------Brand New Energy ("BNE"), dietary supplement re-sale distributor,is recalling all lot codes of EphBurn 25. The recall wasinitiated on August 28, 2012, after notification by the Food andDrug Administration (FDA) to a third-party retailer whichpurchased EphBurn 25 that one lot of EphBurn 25 was sampled by theFDA and found to contain ephedrine alkaloids, making it anunapproved drug.

Ephedrine is commonly used as a stimulant, appetite suppressant,concentration aid, and decongestant, and it has been used to helpaid in weight loss. The ephedrine alkaloids work mainly byincreasing the activity of noradrenaline on adrenergic receptors.A number of adverse effects associated with ephedrine alkaloid-containing dietary supplements have been reported to the FDA.These include elevated blood pressure, rapid heartbeat, nervedamage, muscle injury, and psychosis and memory loss. Moreserious effects have also been reported, including heart attack,stroke, seizure and death. There have been no reports of adverseevents associated with this recalled product.

This recall affects all lot codes and use by dates of EphBurn 25.The product is a 90-count bottle with red capsules and prominentlydisplays the product name "ephBURN 25" in white letters on thefront of a red label. There is no UPC code. EphBurn 25 waspreviously discontinued on or about May of 2012.

BNE is a reseller of nationally-known diet and energy supplementssuch as Zantrex 3, Trim Spa, Hydroxy Cut and others. The productsubject to recall, EphBurn 25, was distributed to various retailstores nationwide, and the product was sold via the Internet fromthe period of time of approximately April 2010 through August2012. No other products distributed by BNE are subject to recall.

Consumers who may have purchased EphBurn 25 should immediatelydiscontinue using the product and contact their health careprofessional if they have experienced any adverse effects.Consumers can contact the distributor of the product atinfo@brandnewenergy.com or call 1-888-234-2595 (8:00 a.m. to 4:00p.m. Pacific Standard Time) to receive further instructions forreturning the product or with any questions.

The Company says it sincerely regrets any inconvenience toconsumers. This recall has been taken voluntarily out of concernfor the health and safety of consumers.

This recall is being made in cooperation with the US Food and DrugAdministration.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use ofthis product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse EventReporting program online, by regular mail, or by fax:

CAMCAR TOWING: Two Drivers File Suit Over Excessive Towing Charges------------------------------------------------------------------10TV.com reports that two drivers filed a class action suit onAug. 29 against towing companies that they said had illegallybilled them.

Bill McCartney said that he is suing after Camcar Towing chargedmore than what the state allows.

Mr. McCartney said that he was charged a $30 administrative fee ontop of the $490 towing fee and $12 storage fee that the stateallows.

"Unfortunately, I was over a barrel," Mr. McCartney said. "I hadno choice but to pay them."

10 Investigates first exposed that both Shamrock and Camcar towingcompanies allegedly charged customers more than the $102 max in2009.

Mr. McCartney said that he felt compelled to sue the companiesafter a number of people faced the same issue.

"I knew they had to be stopped, and the only way to stop them wasto hit them in the pocket book again," Mr. McCartney said.

Camcar officials did not immediately return 10 Investigates' phonecalls. Shamrock officials told 10 Investigates to speak to thecompany's lawyer, who said that he was not available.

In the past, a Camcar manager said the company was "not rippinganyone off." Shamrock officials told 10 Investigates that thecompany needs to charge administrative fees to cover expenses.

"It is definitely illegal," said Fred Gittes, Mr. McCartney'sattorney. He filed the class-action suit on Aug. 29 and said thathe did not buy the towing companies' defense.

Mr. Gittes said his main challenge was to include all of thealleged victims. Mr. Gittes needs significantly more plaintiffsto continue the law suit as a class action. He told 10Investigates he hoped victims contact his office.

CITIGROUP INC: Issues Statement on Class Action Settlement----------------------------------------------------------Citigroup Inc. on Aug. 29 announced it has agreed, subject tocourt approval, to settle a class action lawsuit brought on behalfof investors who purchased Citigroup common stock during theperiod February 26, 2007 through April 18, 2008. Under the termsof the proposed settlement, Citi would pay a total of $590million. Plaintiffs in the class action had contended, amongother things, that they were fraudulently misled by misstatementsand omissions in the company's disclosures during this period.Citigroup denies the allegations and is entering into thissettlement solely to eliminate the uncertainties, burden andexpense of further protracted litigation. The amount to be paidunder the proposed settlement is covered by Citi's existinglitigation reserves.

The company released the following statement:

"Citi will be pleased to put this matter behind us. Thissettlement is a significant step toward resolving our exposure toclaims arising from the period of the financial crisis.

"Citi is fundamentally a different company today than at thebeginning of the financial crisis. Citi has overhauled riskmanagement, reduced risk exposures and through our core businessesin Citicorp, we are focused on the basics of banking, leveragingour unique presence throughout the emerging and developed marketsto serve our clients and the real economy."

The proposed settlement will be reviewed by the Hon. Sidney Steinin the United States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York, where the class action is pending. Further informationconcerning the details of the settlement are available from thecourt's docket, In Re Citigroup Inc. Securities Litigation, 07Civ. 9901, or from plaintiffs' lead counsel, Kirby McInerney LLP,at http://www.kmllp.comor 212-371-6600. Additional information may also be obtained athttp://www.citigroupsecuritiessettlement.comor by calling 877- 600-6533.

Citi, a global bank, has approximately 200 million customeraccounts and does business in more than 160 countries andjurisdictions. Citi provides consumers, corporations, governmentsand institutions with a broad range of financial products andservices, including consumer banking and credit, corporate andinvestment banking, securities brokerage, transaction services,and wealth management.

CITIGROUP INC: Continues to Face LIBOR-Related Suits in New York----------------------------------------------------------------Citigroup Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries continue to facelawsuits and inquiries regarding submissions made by panel banksto bodies that publish various interbank offered rates, accordingto the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,2012.

Government agencies in the U.S., including the Department ofJustice, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and theSecurities and Exchange Commission, as well as agencies in otherjurisdictions, including the European Commission, the U.K.Financial Services Authority, the Japanese Financial ServicesAgency (JFSA) and the Canadian Competition Bureau, are conductinginvestigations or making inquiries regarding submissions made bypanel banks to bodies that publish various interbank offeredrates. As members of a number of such panels, Citigroup Inc.subsidiaries have received requests for information and documentsfrom various U.S. and non-U.S. governmental agencies, includingthe offices of the New York and Connecticut Attorneys General.Citigroup is cooperating with the investigations and inquiries andis responding to the requests.

On December 16, 2011, the JFSA took administrative action againstCitigroup Global Markets Japan Inc. (CGMJ) for, among otherthings, certain communications made by two CGMJ traders about theEuroyen Tokyo interbank offered rate (TIBOR) and the yen Londoninterbank offered rate (LIBOR). The JFSA issued a businessimprovement order and suspended CGMJ's trading in derivativesrelated to yen LIBOR and Euroyen and yen TIBOR from January 10 toJanuary 23, 2012. On the same day, the JFSA also tookadministrative action against Citibank Japan Ltd. (CJL) forconduct arising out of CJL's retail business and also noted thatthe communications made by the CGMJ traders to employees of CJLabout Euroyen TIBOR had not been properly reported to CJL'smanagement team. The inquiries by government agencies intovarious interbank offered rates are ongoing.

Beginning in April 2011, a number of purported class actions andother private civil lawsuits were filed in various courts againstbanks that served on the LIBOR panel and their affiliates,including certain Citigroup subsidiaries. The actions, whichassert various federal and state law claims relating to thesetting of LIBOR, have been consolidated into a multidistrictlitigation proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the SouthernDistrict of New York. Additional information relating to theseactions is publicly available in court filings under docket number1:11-md-2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).

A number of additional putative class actions were filed in theSouthern District of New York against banks that served on certaininterbank offered rates panels and certain of those banks'affiliates, including Citigroup affiliates. Additionalinformation relating to these actions is publicly available incourt filings under docket numbers 1:12-cv-3419 (S.D.N.Y.)(Daniels, J.), 12-cv-4205 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 1:12-cv-5280(S.D.N.Y.) (Kaplan, J.), 12-cv-5723 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), and12-cv-5822 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).

CITIGROUP INC: Interchange Fee Suit Deal Documents Due on Oct. 19-----------------------------------------------------------------Parties to the consolidated lawsuit over card interchange feeshave until October 19, 2012, to file for preliminary approvaldefinitive documentation of their settlement, according toCitigroup Inc.'s August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,2012.

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filedagainst Citigroup Inc. and its affiliates and subsidiaries andcurrent and former officers, directors and employees, collectivelyreferred to as Citigroup and Related Parties, together with Visa,MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in variousfederal district courts. These actions were consolidated withother related cases in the Eastern District of New York andcaptioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNTANTITRUST LITIGATION. The plaintiffs in the consolidated classaction are merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-brandedpayment cards, as well as membership associations that claim torepresent certain groups of merchants. The pending complaintalleges, among other things, that defendants have engaged inconspiracies to set the price of interchange and merchant discountfees on credit and debit card transactions in violation of Section1 of the Sherman Act. The complaint also alleges additionalSherman Act and California law violations, including allegedunlawful maintenance of monopoly power and alleged unlawfulcontracts in restraint of trade pertaining to various Visa andMasterCard rules governing merchant conduct (including rulesallegedly affecting merchants' ability, at the point of sale, tosurcharge payment card transactions or steer customers toparticular payment cards). In addition, supplemental complaintsfiled against defendants in the class action allege that Visa'sand MasterCard's respective initial public offerings wereanticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, andthat MasterCard's initial public offering constituted a fraudulentconveyance.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief as well as joint and severalliability for treble their damages, including all interchange feespaid to all Visa and MasterCard members with respect to Visa andMasterCard transactions in the U.S. since at least January 1,2004. Certain publicly available documents estimate that Visa-and MasterCard-branded cards generated approximately $40 billionin interchange fees industry wide in 2009. Defendants disputethat the manner in which interchange and merchant discount feesare set, or the rules governing merchant conduct, areanticompetitive. Fact and expert discovery has closed.Defendants' motions to dismiss the pending class action complaintand the supplemental complaints are pending. Also pending areplaintiffs' motion to certify nationwide classes consisting of allU.S. merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded paymentcards and motions by both plaintiffs and defendants for summaryjudgment. The parties have been engaged in mediation for severalyears, including recent settlement conferences held at thedirection of the court. Additional information relating to theseconsolidated actions is publicly available in court filings underthe docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Gleeson, J.).

On July 13, 2012, all parties to the putative class actions,including Citigroup and Related Parties, entered into a Memorandumof Understanding (MOU) setting forth the material terms of a classsettlement. The settlement described in the MOU is subject to anumber of conditions, including agreement on definitivedocumentation of the settlement, any necessary approvals by theboards of directors of the parties, defendants' entry intosettlement agreements with certain merchants that have filedseparate individual actions against the Visa and MasterCardnetworks, and preliminary and final approval by the court. Theclass settlement contemplated by the MOU provides for, among otherthings, a total payment by all defendants to the class of $6.05billion; a rebate to merchants participating in the classsettlement of 10 basis points on interchange collected for aperiod of eight months by the Visa and MasterCard networks;changes to certain network rules that would permit merchants tosurcharge some payment card transactions subject to certainlimitations and conditions, including disclosure to consumers atthe point of sale; and broad releases in favor of the defendants.The Boards of Directors of Citigroup and Citibank have approvedthe settlement. The court has ordered the parties to filedefinitive documentation of the settlement with the court forpreliminary approval no later than October 19, 2012.

CITIGROUP INC: Writ of Certiorari Sought in One ERISA Suit----------------------------------------------------------Plaintiff-appellants in the lawsuit captioned GRAY v. CITIGROUPINC. filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the UnitedStates Supreme Court seeking review of an appeals court decisionaffirming the dismissal of their complaint, according to theCompany's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,2012.

Beginning in November 2007, numerous putative class actions werefiled in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York by current or former Citigroup Inc. employeesasserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act(ERISA) against Citigroup and its affiliates and subsidiaries andcurrent and former officers, directors and employees alleged tohave served as ERISA plan fiduciaries. On August 31, 2009, thedistrict court granted defendants' motion to dismiss theconsolidated class action complaint, captioned IN RE CITIGROUPERISA LITIGATION. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and, onOctober 19, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for theSecond Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing thecase. Additional information relating to this action is publiclyavailable in court filings under the docket number 07 Civ. 9790(S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.) and 09-3804 (2d Cir.) and 11A1045 (S. Ct.).

Beginning on October 28, 2011, several putative class actions werefiled in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York by current or former Citigroup employeesasserting claims under ERISA against Citigroup and Related Partiesalleged to have served as ERISA plan fiduciaries from 2008 to2009. Additional information relating to these actions ispublicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 11Civ. 7672, 7943, 8982, 8990 and 8999 (S.D.N.Y.) (Koeltl, J.).

On June 22, 2012, plaintiffs-appellants filed a petition for awrit of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court seekingreview of the United States Court of Appeals for the SecondCircuit's decision affirming the district court's dismissal ofplaintiffs' complaint in GRAY v. CITIGROUP INC.

COMCAST CORP: Appeal May Delay Class Action Settlement------------------------------------------------------Bob Fernandez, writing for Philly.com, reports that Comcast Corp.reached a "tentative settlement" in early June with lawyersrepresenting about two million Philadelphia-area Comcast cable-TVcustomers in an $875 million class-action lawsuit.

But Comcast says the deal was not final and has declined to followit because two weeks later the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hearan appeal of the case.

Details of the settlement --- including cash payments, servicediscounts or credits for Comcast cable-TV customers -- are nowunder a court-approved seal order.

It is the latest development in the long-running antitrust suit,filed in 2003, that claims Comcast clustered cable systems in thePhiladelphia area through a series of swaps with other cablecompanies in the late 1990s, enabling it to control and raisecable prices.

The Supreme Court's willingness to hear the potentially precedent-setting case was viewed by legal experts as a blow to theplaintiffs. The threat of a September trial date made Comcastamenable to settling because of the potential for painful damages,they said.

A ruling by the nation's highest court in Comcast's favor couldmake the plaintiffs' case substantially more difficult.

Federal Judge John R. Padova held a hearing on the settlementdispute here on Aug. 28. The online legal-affairs site Law360quoted lawyer Michael Carroll, of Davis Polk & Wardell L.L.P, whorepresents Comcast, saying in court, "Our understanding of theterm sheet is that the term sheet was a starting point for us."He added, "Both sides hedged a little bit in this case. Bothsides left room to negotiate a little more. Both sides wereleaving a little window."

Carroll and lead plaintiff attorney Barry Barnett, of SusmanGodfrey L.L.P., described the agreement in a jointly signed June13 letter to Judge Padova. The letter is part of the court file.

"The parties are pleased to inform the court that they havereached a tentative agreement to resolve the above-mentionedactions," the letter said. "As noted, the parties plan to filepreliminary approval papers shortly after final settlement papersare completed on June 30," it continued.

The Supreme Court announced its decision on June 25 to hearComcast v. Behrend this fall. It will be the first time a Comcastcase will be decided at the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court will consider whether the Philadelphia judgeproperly certified the Comcast cable TV customers as a damagedclass for the purposes of the suit. A key issue is whether thereis evidence that the Comcast customers were uniformly harmed bythe company, and how to calculate the damages.

Comcast spokeswoman Jenni Moyer said Comcast was not disclosingthe amount of the discussed settlement. Mr. Barnett did notrespond to an e-mail or phone call seeking comment.

Kenneth A. Jacobson, a professor at Temple University's lawschool, called the situation unusual because the Supreme Courtdoes not typically decide to hear a case "during the settlementnegotiation and approval process."

CORNERSTONE WEALTH: Investors Sue Over Junk Mortgage Fund---------------------------------------------------------William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that San Diego-based Cornerstone Wealth Management lost nearly $7 million of itsclients' money in a junk mortgage fund that went belly-up when thehousing market collapsed, a class action claims.

Lead plaintiff Sean Berton, of Pennsylvania, sued CornerstoneWealth Management LLC; its owner-operator Chris L. Meacham; RomeroPark P.S., a law firm; and H. Troy Romero, an attorney and partnerin the firm.

In his Superior Court complaint, Mr. Berton claims Cornerstonelied to investors, telling them the Scripps Investment MortgageFund I was safe because it invested solely in first trust realestate deeds, that investors would be "first in line to recovertheir investment principal in the event of default by borrowers."

But Mr. Berton claims Cornerstone knew or should have known thatthe Scripps fund was a junk mortgage fund consisting of second,third and fourth trust deeds and high-risk construction loans.

"Investors had virtually no chance of recovering their investmentin the event of default. Cornerstone further concealed the factthat the Scripps Fund was highly susceptible to downturns in theeconomy and there was a very high risk of default. In 2008, theScripps Fund began to fail and, as of today, the fund isworthless. Investors lost their entire investment," Mr. Bertonsays in the complaint.

He claims that when the Scripps fund began tanking, Cornerstoneand Meacham tried to take investors' money out of the fund, andwhen that failed, concocted a scheme to place the blame onScripps.

Scripps is not a party to the complaint.

Mr. Berton claims that Mr. Meacham "falsely reported to investorsin 2008 that Cornerstone had only just discovered that the ScrippsFund had invested in high risk junior trust deeds. He accused theScripps Fund of misleading investors and Cornerstone."

The complaint continues: "After telling investors that the ScrippsFund had misled them, Meacham knew that investors would likely suethe Scripps Fund to recover their losses. But Meacham had tocontrol the litigation in order to hide the fact that he had knownall along that the Scripps Fund was investing primarily in second,third and fourth trust deeds, as well as high-risk constructionloans. If investors learned of Meacham's knowledge, he mostcertainly would expose himself and Cornerstone to liability."

So, Mr. Berton claims, Mr. Meacham enlisted defendants H. TroyRomero and Romero Park to persuade the investors to giveCornerstone limited power of attorney to settle their claimsagainst the Scripps Fund.

Cornerstone sued the Scripps fund in November 2009, in San DiegoSuperior Court. But Mr. Berton claims: "Romero did not name anyof the investors as plaintiffs in the case. Instead, Cornerstone,Meacham and Romero erroneously claimed that the investors had'assigned' their claims against the Scripps Fund to Cornerstone,despite an express anti-assignment clause each investor signedwhen they invested in the Scripps Fund.

"In November of 2011, the Scripps Fund filed a motion for summaryjudgment challenging the 'assignments' as invalid and ineffective.Two days before the hearing on the motion for summary judgment,Cornerstone agreed to settle the case for pennies on the dollar,well below the funds available from the Scripps Fund's insurancepolicy. Romero received $500,000 in contingency attorneys' fees."

"For example, he falsely represented to them that, if they did notsettle, they would have to pay up to $680,000 in attorneys' feesand costs relating to depositions, even if they were notsuccessful at trial," the complaint states. "In addition, becausethey were not named as parties in the lawsuit, there was a riskthat investors would recover nothing if they did not accept thesettlement. The case ultimately settled."

Mr. Berton says that this year he began to question Cornerstoneabout the low value of its settlement with the Scripps Fund, andinvestigated why Cornerstone settled for a small percentage of itsinvestors' losses. He says he got transcripts of Meacham'sdepositions from Cornerstone's litigation against the Scripps Fundand discovered what both Meacham and Romero knew.

"The transcript revealed that Cornerstone knew all along that theScripps Fund had been investing in second, third and fourth trustdeeds. Although Romero was at Meacham's deposition, he neverinformed investors of Cornerstone's knowledge or potentialliability. He did not withdraw as the investors' attorney.Instead, he continued to ostensibly represent the investors,"Mr. Berton says in the complaint.

Even though the Scripps Fund prospectuses that Cornerstone gaveits clients indicated that the fund invested only in first trustdeeds, which are considered safer in the event of a foreclosure,Mr. Berton claims Cornerstone knew better.

"On several occasions, the Scripps Fund notified Cornerstone thatit was investing in 'junior deeds of trust,' industry jargonmeaning second, third or fourth trustees," the complaint states."For example, in his deposition taken in the Scripps action,Meacham admitted that the Scripps Fund regularly reported to himthat it had invested in junior deeds of trust. In fact, theScripps Fund's quarterly newsletter regularly delivered toCornerstone disclosed that the Scripps Fund held junior deeds oftrust. When asked about it at his deposition, Meacham admittedthat 'we noticed that it said junior deed on the . . . quarterlynewsletter."

Mr. Berton claims that Romero "turned a blind eye to the factsthat clearly gave rise to a claim by investors againstCornerstone" when he learned that Meacham knew about the juniordeeds of trust.

"Romero did not advise investors that they had potential againstCornerstone or Meacham," the complaint states. "Romero did notadvise investors about the fact that Romero would represent theinvestors and Cornerstone jointly in the same matter, despiteactual or potential conflicts of interest. Romero did not obtainwritten consent from investors to proceed with the representationdespite likely conflicts of interest between the investors andCornerstone."

When the Scripps Fund asked for summary judgment becauseCornerstone had no standing and failed to get valid assignmentsfrom Mr. Berton and the other investors -- which Scripps expresslyprohibited in its documents anyway -- Cornerstone had no choicebut to settle for 20 cents on the dollar, Mr. Berton says in thecomplaint.

"Just three days before the hearing on the motion for summaryjudgment, scheduled for Feb. 10, 2012, Cornerstone agreed tosettle with the Scripps Fund for $1.5 million or twenty cents onthe dollar despite the fact that the Scripps Fund had a $5 millioninsurance policy. Romero received $500,000 in attorneys' fees,leaving $1 million to distribute to investors. Cornerstone andRomero dismissed the case on Feb. 8, 2012," the complaint states.

Mr. Berton adds: "A key reason for Cornerstone's and Romero'sdecision to settle was the Scripps Fund's argument that the so-called 'assignments' were not valid. If the Scripps Fund's motionfor summary judgment were successful, Romero and Cornerstone facedadditional liability for their carelessness in improperly bringingsuit. But even more importantly, Cornerstone knew that, if thecase went to trial, it would expose its own knowledge that theScripps Fund was investing in junior trust deeds and high-riskconstruction loans."

The recalled products were manufactured in India and soldexclusively at Cost Plus World Market stores nationwide from June2011 through May 2012 for about $17.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled floor matsand return them to any Cost Plus World Market store for a fullrefund. For additional information, contact Cost Plus toll-freeat (877) 967-5362 between 7:00 a.m. through 12:00 p.m. PacificTime any day, or visit the firm's Web site athttp://www.worldmarket.com/and click on Product Recalls under Customer Service.

DEVILBISS AIR: Recalls Air 460T Air Compressors Due to Fire Risk----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withDeVilbiss Air Power Co. of Jackson, Tennessee, announced avoluntary recall of about 460,000 air compressors. Consumersshould stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwiseinstructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell arecalled consumer product.

The air compressor motor can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

DeVilbiss has received 10 reports of motors overheating. Noinjuries have been reported.

The recalled compressors were sold under the Craftsman, EX-CELL,Porter-Cable and Pro-Air II brand names. Recalled models have airslots at the end of the motor that form a horizontal and verticalgrid. The model number on each unit is located on the unit nameplate on the tank. The recalled model numbers, tank size, colorand manufactured date are shown below:

Consumers with a compressor manufactured before the dates shown,but had a motor replaced after July 25, 2003, should also checkthe end cap. The end cap is visible from underneath the motorcover. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States ofAmerica. EX-CELL, Porter-Cable and Pro-Air II-brand compressorswere sold by industrial and construction distributors from July2003 through December 2008 for between $259 and $299. Craftsman-brand compressors were sold at Sears stores nationwide from July2003 through December 2008 for between $279 and $329.

Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the recalledcompressors and call DeVilbiss Air Power Co. or Sears for a freerepair kit. For additional information, consumers with EX-CELL,Porter-Cable and , Pro-Air II compressors should contact DeVilbisstoll-free at (866) 885-1877 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.Eastern Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site athttp://www.porter-cable.com/or http://www.devap.com/. Consumers with Craftsman-brand compressors should call Sears toll-free at(888) 710-9282 between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central Time Mondaythrough Friday or between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central TimeSaturday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.sears.com/

The Class Action Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs receivecompensation at an hourly rate plus non-discretionary bonus orincentive pay based on elements of their individual performance.Furthermore, the Complaint alleges that Delaware North "failed andcontinues to fail to include the bonus or incentive compensationas part of the employee's 'regular rate of pay' for purposes ofcalculating overtime pay." California law mandates that employersinclude non-discretionary incentive pay when calculating non-exempt employees' regular and overtime rate of pay.

Additionally, as to some members of the putative Plaintiff class,the Complaint alleges that Delaware North did not pay theseemployees for all hours worked. Specifically, it alleges thatthese particular employees were 'on-call' for significant hours oftheir work shifts and these hours were neither being recorded norcompensated for.

Managing partner, Norman B. Blumenthal, stated "Failing tocorrectly include employees' bonus and incentive pay in theirovertime rate is a sneaky way for employers to save a few bucks.Unfortunately, these monies belong to the employees and it's ourjob to see that they get it."

The San Diego employment law firm Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmikrepresent many employees of large companies in various wage andhour class actions. If you seek free legal advice or need torecover unpaid overtime wages call one of their experiencedCalifornia labor attorneys today at (866) 771-7099.

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Antitrust Suit Deal Hearing Late This Month------------------------------------------------------------Electronic Arts Inc. disclosed in its August 3, 2012, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended June 30, 2012, that the court will hear plaintiffs'motion to approve a settlement of their antitrust class actionlawsuit in late September 2012.

In June 2008, Geoffrey Pecover filed an antitrust class action inthe United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia, alleging that EA obtained an illegal monopoly in adiscreet antitrust market that consists of "league-brandedfootball simulation video games" by bidding for, and winning,exclusive licenses with the National Football League, CollegiateLicensing Company and Arena Football League. In December 2010,the district court granted the plaintiffs' request to certify aclass of plaintiffs consisting of all consumers who purchased EA'sMadden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena Football video games after2005.

In May 2012, the parties reached a settlement in principle toresolve all claims related to this action. As a result, theCompany recognized a $27 million accrual in the fourth quarter offiscal 2012 associated with the potential settlement. In July2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the court to approve thesettlement. The court will hear that motion in late September2012.

FEDERAL EXPRESS: Summary Judgment in Class Action Affirmed----------------------------------------------------------Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,reports that a split panel of the Fifth District Appellate Courtaffirmed a Madison County order that attempted to close the bookon a decade-old class action lawsuit seeking damages againstFederal Express for late deliveries.

The unpublished ruling of the appeals panel, however, includes adissent that could give the plaintiffs some ammunition for anappeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

In March 2011, Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge grantedsummary judgment to FedEx in a class action complaint StephenFleisher brought against the company in 2001.

The suit was amended in 2003 to add Inland Marketing Services as aplaintiff. Inland claimed that on at least one occasion, FedExcharged it for an expedited delivery, but did not fulfill itspromised delivery date.

The plaintiffs' suit included counts for breach of contract andunjust enrichment.

FedEx in 2010 filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing thatInland did not provide notice of the late delivery as required byits money-back guarantee policy laid out in the company's serviceguide.

In opposition to FedEx's motion, Inland pointed to the billingsection of the service guide to argue that a late delivery couldbe characterized as an "overcharge," which would entitle it to thedifference between the price it paid for expedited deliveryservice and the fee applicable to when its packages were actuallydelivered.

Judge Mudge, who took over the case following Judge Stack'sretirement, granted the company's motion to reconsider in March2011.

He determined that the parties had agreed to a contract thatlimited the remedy for a late delivery to FedEx's money-backguarantee. Judge Mudge also found that the plaintiffs did notsend notice of the late delivery within the required 30 days.

"There is no dispute that the complaint was filed long after the30 day notice period," Judge Mudge wrote in his March 2011 order."The Court finds the language of the contract to be clear andunambiguous and provides that a money-back guarantee wasPlaintiff's exclusive remedy if FedEx breached its contract."

The plaintiffs appealed in April 2011 and last week, a split panelof the appellate court affirmed Judge Mudge's order in anunpublished order written by Justice Stephen Spomer. JusticeJames Donovan concurred and Justice Melissa Chapman dissented.

The majority of the panel used the Fifth District's 2006 ruling inMoody v. Federal Express Corp. to bolster its reasoning.

Justice Spomer wrote for the appeals panel that the Moody courtexamined FedEx's service guide "in the context of a lawsuit for abreach of contract for delayed shipment."

In Moody, Justice Spomer wrote, the court determined that "themoney-back guarantee provision of the contract, which expresslylimited FedEx's liability for a delayed shipment to the actualdamages to the item shipped or a full refund of shipping charges,was the exclusive remedy available to a FedEx customer for delayedshipment."

The Moody court further found that the contract required acustomer to provide a request for a refund within 30 days ofshipment and that allowing a partial refund after that deadline"would render the limitation of liability and notice requirementsmeaningless," Justice Spomer wrote.

As such, the appeals panel in Moody affirmed the dismissal of theplaintiff's complaint because the remedy she sought in her breachof contract claim was excluded under the contract.

Inland, however, argued on appeal that the ruling in Moody wasinapplicable to its case because the court didn't consider the"overcharge" section of FedEx's service guide in its analysis.

Inland claimed that the "overcharge" section allows for a partialrefund for a late delivery because a delayed shipment could beconsidered a billing that results in an incorrect charge.

On behalf of the majority of the appeals panel, Justice Spomerwrote that reading the company's money-back guarantee policy inconjunction with the service guide's "overcharge" section "makesit clear that delayed shipments were intended to be excluded underthe "Overcharge" section and limited to the provisions under"Money-Back Guarantee."

Justice Chapman, however, wrote in her dissent that she "wouldreverse the trial court's order granting a summary judgment forFedEx."

Justice Chapman said she agrees with the previous rulings ofJudges Stack and Barbara Crowder, who also briefly presided overthe case, that "nothing in Moody precludes a plaintiff frompursuing a remedy under a different provision of the contract notraised and considered by the Moody court," such as the"overcharge" provision.

Justice Chapman wrote that "overcharge" is defined by the serviceguide as "a charge based on an incorrect rate; an incorrectspecial handling fee; billing for the wrong type of service; orbilling based on incorrect package or shipment weight; or accountnumbers."

She also noted in her dissent that the "invoiceadjustments/overcharge" section of the service guide expands thedefinition of "overcharge" to include "any billing that results inan incorrect charge."

Reading these two sections together, Justice Chapman wrote,"certainly creates a question as to whether this provision can beused as an alternative remedy to seek a price-difference refundrather than a full money-back guarantee for late delivery."

"Because I believe there remain genuine issues of material fact,FedEx is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law," JusticeChapman wrote in her dissent.

At the trial level, Edwardsville attorney Mark Goldenbergrepresented the plaintiffs and Robert Shultz, formerly of HeylRoyster in Edwardsvile who now works for State Farm MutualAutomobile Insurance Company, represented FedEx.

The citation for the appellate court order in this case is StephenFleischer and Inland Marketing Services Inc. v. Federal ExpressCorp., 2012 IL App (5th) 110156-U.

U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin's order was put in the court file onAug. 29 in Manhattan, where he ruled in May that class action was"more efficient and effective" than requiring thousands of authorsto sue individually. His order was dated on Aug. 28.

The Mountain View-Calif.-based Google appealed the class-certification ruling and asked to delay all proceedings until the2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules.

Judge Chin said a delay was unwarranted, especially since it wouldhold the case up for a year or more.

"The merits would have to be reached at some point in any event,and there simply is no good reason to delay matters further," thejudge wrote.

He also said he found it surprising that Google argued it would beunfair to decide the merits of the case while authors weredeciding whether to opt out of the class, especially "in light ofGoogle's fervent opposition to class certification."

Judge Chin has scheduled oral argument for October on requests bylawyers that he decide issues without a jury.

Google already has scanned more than 20 million books for theproject. The Authors Guild had requested class certification,saying it was impractical and expensive for each author to sueGoogle over similar claims.

The Authors Guild has asked in court papers that the class beawarded $750 in damages for each copyrighted book Google copied.It has argued that Google was not making "fair use" of copyrightmaterial by offering snippets of works in its online library.

Lawyers for Google did not immediately respond to a message forcomment. The company that operates the world's largest Internetsearch engine has defended its online library plans, saying it isfully compliant with copyright law.

ITT CORP: Continues to Litigate Suit vs. Travelers Casualty-----------------------------------------------------------ITT Corporation continues to litigate a class action lawsuit itfiled against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, according tothe Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,2012.

In January 2012, ITT and its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., fileda putative class action against Travelers Casualty and SuretyCompany (ITT Corporation and Goulds Pumps, Inc., v. TravelersCasualty and Surety Company (f/k/a Aetna Casualty and SuretyCompany)), alleging that Travelers is unilaterally reinterpretinglanguage contained in older Aetna policies so as to avoid payingon asbestos claims. The Company says it continues to negotiatesettlement agreements with other insurers, where appropriate.

JAMAICA PUBLIC: Class Action Plaintiffs to Counter-Appeal Ruling----------------------------------------------------------------The attorney representing claimants in the class action suitagainst the Jamaica Public Service Company (JPS) was expected tohead to the Court of Appeal on Aug. 30 to file a counter notice ofappeal.

This follows the filing by JPS on Aug. 29 of an appeal of thejudges' ruling in the suit.

However, JPS is arguing that the judge erred and as such hisruling should be thrown out.

JPS, which is being represented by attorney-at-law Michael Hylton,is also challenging the judge's ruling that section 3 of theElectric Lighting Act does not permit the minister to grant alicense on an exclusive basis.

However, Richard Crawford, one of the co-founders of CitizensUnited to Reduce Electricity (CURE), which had brought the lawsuitagainst the JPS says the group's lawyer was set to file a counterclaim on Aug. 30.

He said attorney, Hugh Wildman, was expected among other things beasking the appeals court to find that Justice Sykes was correctwhen he ruled that the minister had no power to grant an all-island exclusive license to JPS.

No date has been set for the appeal.

Meanwhile, attorney-at-law Marvalyn Taylor-Wright who is alsorepresenting the claimants, on Aug. 29 filed a bill of costsagainst JPS amounting to $24 million in the Supreme Court.

Judicial Corrections Services runs an "offender paid system" forChildersburg, which allows it to collect fines and fees on behalfof the city, according to the complaint.

Childersburg is a town of 5,200 about 40 miles southeast ofBirmingham.

The plaintiffs claim the city allows Judicial Corrections Servicesto collect probation fees based on documents that are not actualcourt orders, and lets the private company intimidate people bythreatening to throw them in jail if they don't pay.

"Defendants have imposed a system whereby the clerical and quasi-judicial functions of the municipal court have been unlawfullycontracted to a private business, using the color of state law forthe collection of private fees and allowing public money to becollected and kept by the private business, in violation ofAlabama law and of the Constitution," the complaint states.

"Defendants have operated the court by clothing JCS with theappearances of state authority allowing JCS employees tointimidate persons and referring to them as 'probation officers'though none have such authority under Alabama statutes. JCSemployees are also allowed to construct documents which appear tobe court orders, holding such out as having the force and effectof court orders, when they were not lawful orders of probation.Defendants have known of this fraudulent activity, but havefashioned a system of allowing JCS a free reign in collectingfines, to threaten plaintiffs' class with incarceration, and byincarcerating persons who have not paid. Members of plaintiffs'class have been placed on 'probation' by defendants in virtuallyall cases, especially where there is no jail sentence possible orwhere it would never be imposed, and this 'probation' is a meansof coercing payment of fines, costs and the fees of JCS.

"This public ruse is maintained by the defendants in order toimpose and collect fines and costs from citizens, and isaccomplished by allowing JCS to determine how much each municipalcourt defendant will be charged for the collection 'services' ofJCS each month, how much of the public money paid will be kept byJCS and how much it will rebate to Childersburg. Plaintiffs averthat Childersburg has unlawfully entered into the businessarrangement with JCS whereby the private entity has been givencontrol and access over public funds and the ability to take suchfunds. This is in violation of state law and of the AlabamaConstitution. Further, defendants have allowed JCS to increaseits monthly probation fee from the $35.00 once imposed and listedon the printed probation sheets to $45.00 per month, doing sowithout legal authority of proper basis or authorization."

Ms. Ray and two named co-plaintiffs say they have been jailedseveral times by JCS for not being able to pay probation feesrelating to traffic and misdemeanor offenses, and were held andreleased at the whim of JCS.

They say the defendants did not hold probation revocation hearingsand failed to consider their inability to pay.

The city and Judicial Corrections Services "have followed apractice of maintaining persons on probation for far longer thanthe two-year limit imposed by Alabama law, keeping some persons onfor years, adding fines, costs and the JCS fees when there is noauthority for such," the complaint states.

They claim the defendants established "a profit-making scheme tofund the cost of the court system upon those least able to pay,"and allow no substitute for heavy fines and probation fees, suchas community service, and impose fines that exceed the legallimit.

They claim the defendants arbitrarily grant early release to somepeople, while denying it to others under similar circumstances,and have no logical review system.

They seek class certification and damages for civil rightsviolations, false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecutionand violations of state laws, and want the defendants enjoinedfrom further violations.

KLEMENT SAUSAGE: Recalls 2,920 Lbs. of Frozen Bratwurst Patties---------------------------------------------------------------Klement Sausage Company Inc., a Milwaukee, Wisconsinestablishment, is recalling approximately 2,920 pounds of frozenbratwurst patties because they may contain foreign materials --pieces of a plastic pen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's FoodSafety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

All products were produced on July 6, 2012. The packages bear theestablishment number "EST. 2426B" in the USDA mark of inspectionand the batch number "21097" on the case label. The products weredistributed for foodservice use in Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota andWisconsin.

FSIS was alerted to the problem by the firm after the companyreceived complaints from distributors who were made aware by foodpreparation personnel who discovered the foreign matter whilepreparing to cook the product. FSIS and the company have receivedno reports of injury or illnesses associated with consumption ofthis product. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact ahealthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verifyrecalling firms notify their customers of the recall and thatsteps are taken to make certain that the product is no longeravailable to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact JeffKlement, the company's vice president of special projects, at(414) 744-2330 x244. Media with questions about the recall shouldcontact Rebecca Quella, the company's director of marketing, at(414) 744-2330 ext 273.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSISvirtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov orvia smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat servicesare available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.Eastern Time. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish andcan be reached from l0:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Mondaythrough Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24hours a day.

M/I HOMES: Claims of Two Plaintiffs Remain in Drywall Suit----------------------------------------------------------Claims over defective drywall asserted by two plaintiffs remainpending, according to M/I Homes, Inc.'s August 3, 2012, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended June 30, 2012.

On March 5, 2009, a resident of Florida and an owner of one of theCompany's homes filed a complaint in the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of himself andother similarly situated owners and residents of homes in theUnited States or alternatively in Florida, against the Company andcertain other identified and unidentified parties (the "InitialAction"). The plaintiff alleged that the Company built his homewith defective drywall, manufactured and supplied by certain ofthe defendants, that contains sulfur or other organic compoundscapable of harming the health of individuals and damagingproperty. The plaintiff alleged physical and economic damages andsought legal and equitable relief, medical monitoring andattorney's fees. The Company filed a responsive pleading on orabout April 30, 2009. The Initial Action was consolidated withother similar actions not involving the Company and transferred tothe Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to an order from theUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation forcoordinated pre-trial proceedings (collectively, the "In Re:Chinese Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation"). Inconnection with the administration of the In Re: ChineseManufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation, the samehomeowner and nine other homeowners were named as plaintiffs inomnibus class action complaints filed in and after December 2009against certain identified manufacturers of drywall and others(including the Company), including one homeowner named as aplaintiff in an omnibus class action complaint filed in March 2010against various unidentified manufacturers of drywall and others(including the Company) (collectively, the "MDL Omnibus Actions").As they relate to the Company, the Initial Action and the MDLOmnibus Actions address substantially the same claims and seeksubstantially the same relief.

The Company has entered into agreements with several of thehomeowners named as plaintiffs pursuant to which the Companyagreed to make repairs to their homes consistent with repairs madeto the homes of other homeowners. As a result of theseagreements, the Initial Action has been resolved and dismissed,and seven of the nine other homeowners named as plaintiffs inomnibus class action complaints have dismissed their claimsagainst the Company. One of the two remaining plaintiffs has alsofiled a complaint in Florida state court asserting essentially thesame claims and seeking substantially the same relief as assertedin the MDL Omnibus Action.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against theclaims of the remaining plaintiffs. Given the inherentuncertainties in this litigation, there can be no assurance thatthe ultimate resolution of the MDL Omnibus Actions, or any otheractions or claims relating to defective drywall that may beasserted in the future, will not have a material adverse effect onthe Company's results of operations, financial condition, and cashflows.

M/I Homes, Inc. -- http://www.mihomes.com/-- and its subsidiaries are builders of single-family homes. The Company wasincorporated, through predecessor entities, in 1973 and commencedhomebuilding activities in 1976. Since that time, the Company hasdelivered over 78,000 homes.

According to the AAR ruling, the Indian IT firm has to deduct 30per cent tax on $125 million and the balance amount will go to theclass-action settlement.

The U.S. investors, who held American Depository Receipts or ADRof Satyam Computer Services, filed a class action suit against thecompany after Ramalinga Raju, former chairman of the company,admitted to a fraud in January, 2009.

". . . the settlement amount will be regarded as sum chargeableunder the provisions of the Act as required under Sec.195 of theIncome-Tax Act . . . the time to deduct the tax is when the amountis moved from the segregated account in India to the initialescrow account in the U.S. . . .," the AAR ruling dated August 27said.

". . . the rate at which the tax is to be deducted is at 30 percent," the ruling said.

When contacted Mahindra Satyam officials refused to comment.

Tech Mahindra, which took over Satyam in 2009, had to settle allpending litigations with several investors who had claimed lossesdue to the shares of the firm plunging on bourses, including theNew York Stock Exchange where Satyam ADRs were listed.

In February, 2011, Mahindra Satyam had said it reached asettlement with the lead plaintiffs in the class-action filedagainst Satyam in the United States District Court, SouthernDistrict Court of New York.

Mahindra Satyam had said it has agreed to pay $125 million subjectto the approval of the Reserve Bank of India and other statutorybodies.

The settlement amount included taxes, compliance costs, attorney'sfees and expenses, it had added.

MEIJER INC: Recalls 68,000 Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withMeijer Inc., of Grand Rapids, Michigan, announced a voluntaryrecall of about 68,000 units of various models of Huffy, IronHorse, Mongoose, Northwoods, Pacific, Razor and Schwinn bicycles.Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unlessotherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt toresell a recalled consumer product.

Pedals on the bicycles can loosen or detach during use, posing afall hazard to the rider.

There are 29 reports of pedals detaching or coming loose duringuse, including 16 reports of minor injuries.

This recall involves two-wheeled youth and adult Huffy, IronHorse, Mongoose, Northwoods, Pacific, Razor, and Schwinn bicyclesmeasuring 20" or more. They were assembled on-site at Meijerstores by Serv-U-Success of Grandville, Michigan. The bicycleswere sold between March 2012 and August 2012 and have a Serv-U-Success assembly sticker attached. This recall does not includebicycles with Serv-U-Success assembly stickers written in greenmarker. The Serv-U-Success assembly sticker is located on thebottom of the bicycle frame between the pedals or on the back ofthe frame facing the rear tire. A full list of affected modelscan be found on Meijer's Web site athttp://www4.meijer.com/recall/bikebooklet.pdf/. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were sold exclusively at Meijer stores inMichigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky from March 2012through August 2012 for between $60 and $300. Bicycles sold atMichigan Meijer stores in Cadillac, Gaylord, Petosky and TraverseCity are not included in this recall.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles andreturn them to any Meijer store for a full refund or a replacementbicycle of the same type and value. Consumers will also receive a$10 store coupon. For additional information, contact Meijer at(800) 927-8699 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site athttp://www.meijer.com/where a link to recalls can be found at the bottom of the homepage.

MF GLOBAL: Objects to Trustee's Bid to Cooperate on Class Claims----------------------------------------------------------------Tiffany Kary, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that MF GlobalHoldings Ltd.'s trustee, Louis Freeh, said the rights to anywinnings from lawsuits against the failed brokerage's officers anddirectors including Jon Corzine shouldn't be given to customers,and should go to the general estate instead.

Representatives for customers have already started class-action,or group, lawsuits against former directors and officers of thecompany, and a trustee for customers has said he plans tocooperate, sharing documents in exchange for any recoveries.

Because the agreement calls for general estate creditors to bepaid only if the customers are paid in full first, the customers"are clearly not properly incentivized to litigate fully," Mr.Freeh said in an objection filed in Manhattan bankruptcy court onAug. 29.

He said that while some lawsuit proceeds may belong to customers,it is up to the general estate to manage them. Mr. Freeh has beenunwinding the parent company under Chapter 11 of the U.S.Bankruptcy Code to repay creditors.

A separate trustee, James Giddens, is overseeing the brokerageunit, MF Global Inc., which is liquidating under the SecuritiesInvestor Protection Act to repay customers. Both trustees havemade their own probes into how the company failed and have been atodds over whether certain sums belong to creditors or customers.

"To assign general estate causes of action to a party other thanthe Chapter 11 Trustee -- and worse yet to customerrepresentatives that are not incentivized to look out for theinterests of general estate creditors -- would appear not only tobe a poor exercise of business judgment but also could jeopardizethe Chapter 11 Trustee's own causes of action," lawyers for Mr.Freeh wrote.

MF Global Holdings, run by former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS)Co-Chairman Mr. Corzine until his Nov. 4 resignation, filed theeighth-largest U.S. bankruptcy in October after a $6.3 billiontrade on its own behalf on bonds of some of Europe's most indebtednations led to margin calls.

Separately, Mr. Corzine and other officers, a group of lenders anda group of creditors also objected in papers filed in court. Mr.Corzine and 23 other individuals at the company said that aspotential defendants, they object to Mr. Giddens' plan to give theplaintiffs whatever materials he wants.

Mr. Giddens' agreement with the class-action lawsuits would alsolimit their right to get information and make them pay for some ofit, they added.

Creditors called Mr. Giddens' attempt to manage the class-actionrecoveries "simply another back-handed attempt" to "allocategeneral estate assets to customers." The lenders, who say theyare an ad-hoc group owning more than $1.4 billion in customerclaims, said there are no provisions that assure the claims willbe "fully prosecuted or fairly settled for the benefit" of allcreditors.

"We disagree with the objections" said Kent Jarrell, a spokesmanfor Mr. Giddens. Mr. Jarrell said in a statement that Mr. Freehhas "some inherent conflicts in opposing this motion becauseindividuals currently employed" by him are defendants in thelitigation.

Mr. Giddens' cooperation with the class-action plaintiffs is thebest way to recover assets and is "free from any possibleconflicts with employees or creditors," Mr. Jarrell said, notingthat Mr. Freeh is tasked with returning funds to large banks suchas JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), and hedge funds.

A hearing on Mr. Giddens' request to cooperate with class-actionplaintiffs is scheduled for Sept. 5, according to court records.

Mr. Freeh has predicted that MF Global's customers, facing a $1.6billion gap in funds, will eventually recoup all of their money,while Mr. Giddens has said distributions should be "in the 90percent range."

Mr. Giddens may also sue former Chief Financial Officer HenriSteenkamp and former assistant treasurer Edith O'Brien, amongothers, as a way to recover more money, he has said.

The brokerage case is Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. MFGlobal Inc., 11-02790, U.S. District Court, Southern District ofNew York (Manhattan). The parent's bankruptcy case is MF GlobalHoldings Ltd. (MFGLQ), 11-bk-15059, U.S. Bankruptcy Court,Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Defends Suits Over Polyurethane Foam Products----------------------------------------------------------------Mohawk Industries, Inc. continues to defend itself againstlawsuits related to polyurethane foam products, according to theCompany's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,2012.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits wereinitiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certainmanufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of theCompany's carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing inviolation of U.S. antitrust laws. Mohawk has been named as adefendant in a number of the individual cases (the first filed onAugust 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended classaction complaints, the first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalfof a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products,and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class ofindirect purchasers. All pending cases in which the Company hasbeen named as a defendant have been filed in or transferred to theU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio forconsolidated pre-trial proceedings under the name In re:Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or aclass of purchasers, seek three times the amount of unspecifieddamages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges inthe price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to thepresent. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment andpost-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief againstfuture violations. In April 2011, the Company filed a motion todismiss the class action claims brought by the direct purchasers,and in May 2011, the Company moved to dismiss the claims broughtby the indirect purchasers. On July 19, 2011, the Court issued awritten opinion denying all defendants' motions to dismiss. InDecember 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a CanadianClass action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v. HickorySprings Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in the Superior Courtof Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options Consommateures v.Vitafoam, Inc. et.al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice ofQuebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which allege similar claimsagainst the Company as raised in the U.S. actions and seekunspecified damages and punitive damages. The Company denies allof the allegations in these actions and will vigorously defenditself.

The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution ofall contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been madefor probable losses and that the ultimate outcome of these actionswill not have a material adverse effect on its financial conditionbut could have a material adverse effect on its results ofoperations in a given quarter or year.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. -- http://www.mohawkind.com/-- is a supplier of flooring for both residential and commercialapplications. Mohawk offers a complete selection of carpet,ceramic tile, laminate, wood, stone, vinyl, and rugs. Theseproducts are marketed under the premier brands in the industry,which include Mohawk, Karastan, Lees, Bigelow, Dal-Tile, AmericanOlean, Unilin and Quick Step. Mohawk's unique merchandising andmarketing assist the Company's customers in creating theconsumers' dream. Mohawk provides a premium level of service withits own trucking fleet and local distribution.

NEVADA PROPERTY: Arbitrations Ongoing in The Cosmopolitan Suits---------------------------------------------------------------Nevada Property 1 LLC disclosed in its August 3, 2012, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended June 30, 2012, that 14 condominium hotel units atThe Cosmopolitan remain subject to ongoing arbitrations.

Nevada Property 1 LLC, a limited liability company organized inDelaware, (the "Company") owns and operates The Cosmopolitan ofLas Vegas (the "Property" or "The Cosmopolitan") which commencedoperations on December 15, 2010. Prior to December 15, 2010, theProperty was in its construction and pre-opening stage.

The entity that previously owned the Property was Cosmo SeniorBorrower LLC, a limited liability company organized in Delaware("CSB"), which acquired the Property from its affiliate, 3700Associates, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the"Previous Owner"), in December 2005.

During the period from 2005 to 2007, the Previous Owner and CSBentered into binding purchase and sale contracts (the "PurchaseContracts") for the purchase and sale of 1,821 condominium-hotelunits during the development and construction stage of theProperty. These Purchase Contracts were acquired by the Companyin connection with acquisition of the Property at the foreclosuresale on September 3, 2008. The total sales proceeds associatedwith the Purchase Contracts, if all of the Purchase Contracts wereto close pursuant to their terms, would be approximately $1.4billion. Upon or shortly after signing the Purchase Contracts,the purchasers deposited into escrow 20% of the applicablepurchase price as a non-refundable earnest money deposit, whichtotaled approximately $307 million at December 31, 2008, includinginterest accrued thereon. Beginning in late 2008, certainpurchasers, both individually and as part of several large-scaleclass actions, filed legal actions and arbitrations against theCompany seeking to rescind the Purchase Contracts and receive areturn of their earnest money deposits. The purchasers claimed,among other things, that the opening of The Cosmopolitan had beenunreasonably delayed, which was alleged to be a breach by theCompany of the Purchase Contracts.

The Company was a named defendant in a number of lawsuits andarbitrations concerning the purchase and sale of condominium unitslocated within the East and West Towers of the Property. Theplaintiffs alleged, among other things, that delays in thecompletion of the Property and changes to the design of theProperty constituted material breaches by the Company, thuspermitting the plaintiffs/purchasers to rescind their contract andreceive a full refund of their earnest money deposit, plusinterest thereon. The Company was represented in each of thesematters by outside legal counsel. Virtually all of the originalclaims have been settled (through either a series of class actionor individual settlements) or litigated to completion.

As of August 3, 2012, there were 14 condominium hotel units thatremain the subject of ongoing arbitrations. The Company isactively engaged in various arbitrations and other disputeresolution proceedings with respect to all of those units. Thoseproceedings are in varying stages and the Company disputes theallegations made by the buyers in those proceedings. For each ofthese claims, the Company believes that it has strong legaldefenses, and intends to vigorously defend its position.Management does not believe that these claims will have a materialadverse impact on the condensed consolidated financial position,cash flows, or the results of operations of the Company. TheCompany expects that some of the units that are the subject ofongoing arbitrations may be settled under similar terms to thoseof prior settlements, while others may be litigated to completion.

In the third quarter of 2012, a buyer agreed to settle and releasetheir claim against the Company arising under their agreement topurchase a condominium hotel unit. Under the terms of thesettlement, the buyer received a refund of 48% of their principalearnest money deposit. The Company retained 52% of the principaldeposit, plus 100% of all interest, under the purchase contract,resulting in a net gain of $0.1 million which the Company willrecognize as net settlement income in the 2012 consolidatedstatement of operations.

NEVADA PROPERTY: Faces Two Wage and Hour Class Action Suits-----------------------------------------------------------Nevada Property 1 LLC is facing two wage and hour class actionlawsuits, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company has been put on notice and or served with two separateclass action lawsuits related to alleged unpaid compensation fortime incurred by employees while on property for donning anddoffing of the employees' required uniform, alleged improperrounding of time for hours worked and various other claims relatedto alleged unpaid compensation. The Company says it is in theprocess of evaluating the lawsuits and cannot at this timedetermine the potential impact of the lawsuits on the condensedconsolidated financial position, cash flows, or the results ofoperations of the Company.

NEVADA PROPERTY: Sued Over Unlawful Taping/Recording of Calls-------------------------------------------------------------Nevada Property 1 LLC is facing a class action lawsuit inCalifornia alleging unlawful taping and recording of calls,according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedJune 30, 2012.

A class action lawsuit has been filed in Superior Court in theState of California against the Company, alleging violation of theCalifornia Penal Code regarding the unlawful taping or recordingof calls. The Company says it is in the process of evaluating thelawsuit and cannot at this time determine the potential impact ofthe lawsuit on the condensed consolidated financial position, cashflows, or the results of operations of the Company.

NEW BALANCE: Settles Toning Shoes Class Action for $2.3 Million---------------------------------------------------------------Alice Hines, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that peoplewho didn't get that tight butt they were promised from NewBalance's "toning" shoes are now at least getting a check.

On Aug. 20, a Massachusetts judge agreed to let New Balance pay$2.3 million to settle false advertising claims filed against thecompany by three women in 2011. The women, Kimberly Carey,Victoria Molinarolo and Shannon Dilbeck will get up to $5,000each, according to court documents. Others who join the classaction will receive a $100 refund for each pair of toning shoesthey purchased.

New Balance's shoes, which originally retailed for around $100,were introduced in 2010 and advertised as stylish toning shoesthat looked like regular sneakers. New Balance claimed itsTrueBalance and Rock&Tone lines "activated" certain lower bodymuscles with soles that made it hard to stay balanced, as if thewearer was running on sand, according to the original class-actioncomplaint. In ads, New Balance called its shoes a "hidden beautysecret," promising that they helped the wearer burn 8 percent morecalories than regular sneakers.

In their complaint, filed in Massachusetts, where New Balance isheadquartered, the plaintiffs called the company's advertisingdeceptive. "Wearing the Toning Shoes provides no additionalactivation to the gluteus, hamstring or calf muscles, and does notburn any additional calories," lawyers wrote. "Moreover,scientists are concerned that wearing the Toning Shoes may lead toinjury, a fact which New Balance deceptively omits from itsadvertising."

While all the talk of simulating balancing on sand was shaky tobegin with, thousands of people bought into the marketing over thepast few years -- the toning shoe industry sold $252 million worthof shoes in the first four months of 2010, up from $17 million in2008, according to the complaint. At the height of the toningshoe craze, a FitFlop pair was spotted on actress Julianne Moore,and Skechers hired Kim Kardashian to push its Shape-ups.

Both Skechers and Reebok have recently been ordered by the FederalTrade Commission to pay settlements to duped consumers. In May ofthis year, Skechers agreed to pay $40 million in consumer refunds;in September of 2011, Reebok agreed to pay $25 million over itsEasyTone shoes. Those companies can no longer claim that sciencebacks up their shoes' weight loss claims without hard evidence.(According to the Federal Trade Commission, one of the doctorsthat Skechers used to advertise its Shape-ups was paid by thecompany and also married to a Skechers marketing executive, a factthe company did not disclose in advertisements.)

New Balance has not faced Federal Trade Commission sanctions sofar, though the class-action settlement also prevents the companyfrom claiming its shoes do anything to promote health withoutproof from clinical studies.

OLD NATIONAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Checking Acct. Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Old National Bancorp is awaiting a court decision on its motion todismiss a class action lawsuit related to its checking accountpractices associated with the assessment of overdraft fees,according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedJune 30, 2012.

In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action lawsuitchallenging Old National Bank's checking account practicesassociated with the assessment of overdraft fees. On May 1, 2012,the plaintiff was granted permission to file a First AmendedComplaint which names additional plaintiffs and amends certainclaims. The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief, includingrestitution. Old National believes it has meritorious defenses tothe claims brought by the plaintiffs. At this phase of thelitigation, it is not possible for management of Old National todetermine the probability of a material adverse outcome orreasonably estimate the amount of any loss. No class has yet beencertified and discovery is ongoing. On June 13, 2012, OldNational filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint,which has not yet been ruled upon.

Old National Bancorp -- http://www.oldnational.com/-- operates as a holding company for Old National Bank, which provides financialservices to individuals and commercial customers primarily inIndiana, eastern and southeastern Illinois, and central andwestern Kentucky. The company was founded in 1834 and isheadquartered in Evansville, Indiana.

OLD REPUBLIC: Continues to Defend "Barker" Class Suit vs. ORHP--------------------------------------------------------------Old Republic International Corporation continues to defend itssubsidiary against a class action lawsuit pending in Alabamaalleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedJune 30, 2012.

On May 22, 2009, a purported national class action lawsuit wasfiled in the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama (Barker v.Old Republic Home Protection Company) alleging that ORHP paid feesto real estate brokers to market its home warranty contracts andthat the payment of such fees was in violation of Sections 8(a)and 8(b) of RESPA. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages,including treble damages under RESPA. No class has beencertified, and the action is not expected to result in anymaterial liability to the Company.

Old Republic International Corporation is among U.S.'s 50 largestpublicly held insurance organizations, with a substantial interestin major segments of the industry. The Company is primarily acommercial lines underwriter, serving many of America's leadingindustrial and financial services companies as valued customers.The Company is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC's Appeal From Class Cert. Order Pending------------------------------------------------------------A subsidiary's appeal from an order granting class certificationin the lawsuit captioned Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC remains pending,according to Old Republic International Corporation's August 3,2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Purported class action lawsuits are pending against the Company'sprincipal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National TitleInsurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in federal courts in two states --Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court,Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006), and Texas(Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Northern District,Texas, Dallas Division, filed February 8, 2008). The plaintiffsallege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/orrefinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurancecovering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rateschedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with thestate insurance regulatory authorities. The Pennsylvania lawsuitalso alleges violations of the federal Real Estate SettlementProcedures Act ("RESPA"). The Court in the Texas lawsuitdismissed similar RESPA allegations. Classes have been certifiedin both actions, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has grantedORNTIC's motion appealing the Texas class certification.

Old Republic International Corporation is among U.S.'s 50 largestpublicly held insurance organizations, with a substantial interestin major segments of the industry. The Company is primarily acommercial lines underwriter, serving many of America's leadingindustrial and financial services companies as valued customers.The Company is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

The recalled bicycle handlebars, intended for high-end road racingbikes, are compact and drop-shaped. The handlebars are soldseparately and they have two labels with "Pro Vibe" logo directlyprinted on them. The model number appears on the bar code stickeron the packaging and serial numbers are printed on a label insidethe tube of the handlebar. The recalled model numbers are:PRHA0099, PRHA0102, PRHA0103, PRHA0105 and PRHA0106. The affectedserial codes are: JE028ZG, JE101ZG, JE106ZG, JF081ZG, JF102ZG,JG048ZG, JH006ZG and JH077ZG. Pictures of the recalled productsare available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold bybicycle specialty stores and dealers nationwide from June 2011through April 2012 for about $370.

Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles with the recalledhandlebars and contact Shimano for information about obtaining afree replacement from an authorized retailer in their area. Foradditional information, contact Shimano American Corporation at(800) 353-4719 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Mondaythrough Friday, or visit the firm's Web site athttp://www.shimano.com/

SNOWPULSE SA: Recalls 3,800 Avalanche Airbags Due to Injury Risk----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, incooperation with importer, Mammut Sports Group Inc., of Shelburne,Vermont; manufacturer, Snowpulse SA, of Martigny, Switzerland; anddistributor, Mountain Sports Distribution, of Golden BritishColumbia, Canada, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,200Snowpulse Avalanche Airbags in the United States of America and2,600 in Canada. Consumers should stop using recalled productsimmediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resellor attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A leak in the airbag's cartridge can result in the airbag notdeploying, posing a risk of death and injury in the event of anavalanche.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Snowpulse Avalanche airbags with inflation-system 1.0 air cartridges. The airbags are used for skiing,snowmobiling and mountain climbing to help keep the user above thesurface if an avalanche occurs. Model year 2008 to 2010 airbagcartridges are included in this recall. The packs are between 15and 45 liters and have the "Snowpulse" logo printed on them. Themetal cartridge is inside the pack and unscrews from the airbag.Cartridges using inflation system 1.0 gauges can be identified bythe pin inside the threaded fitting on the side of the cartridge.If this gauge does not have an "A" or a "B" on the dial then it isincluded in the recall. Pictures of the recalled products areavailable at:

The recalled products were manufactured in Switzerland and sold bySpecialty outdoor and motorsports stores nationwide from September2008 through April 2012 for between $900 and $1,200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled airbags andcontact Snowpulse for a replacement cartridge. For additionalinformation, contact Snowpulse at (800) 451-5127 between 9:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit thefirm's Web site at http://www.snowpulse.com/

SP AusNet is facing two class actions over its role in two deadlybushfires in February 2009: Kilmore East, which killed 119 people,and Murrindindi, which killed 40 people.

The Singapore-backed company, which is worth AUD3.5 billion, hasalready agreed to pay AUD19.7 million in response to a classaction over the Beechworth bushfire earlier this year.

A draft ruling by the Australian Energy Regulator this week openedthe way for SP AusNet to pass on excess costs to its customersfrom the Kilmore East and Murrindindi fires -- which would meanany costs related to the class actions not covered by itsinsurance.

State Energy Minister Michael O'Brien said the government wasawaiting the regulator's advice on the potential implications ofits draft decision.

"As a matter of principle, the Victorian government would notsupport any regulatory action that resulted in bushfire victimspaying for damage caused by their electricity network. Thegovernment will consider all its options to stand up for theinterests of Victorian consumers through the regulatory process,"Mr. O'Brien said.

Opposition energy spokeswoman Lily D'Ambrosio said it wouldconsider making a submission to the regulator about its decision.

Gerard Brody, policy director at Consumer Action Law Centre, said:"These decisions are meant to be made with the long-term interestsof consumers in mind -- that's the legislative obligation -- andI'd say at first blush this sounds like it's definitely got theinterests of SP AusNet and their shareholders in mind, notconsumers."

In instances such as catastrophic events beyond their control,electricity networks can request to pass on associated costs totheir customers, to keep their insurance costs under control.This week's draft ruling backdates the period for which SP AusNetcan apply to "pass through" associated costs in the period 2006-10, therefore taking in Black Saturday.

SP AusNet told shareholders last week that under the draft ruling,there "may be circumstances in which liability which exceedsinsurance may be recovered by SP AusNet as regulated revenue."

Shareholders liked the news, pushing SP AusNet's shares up 4 percent on Aug. 30, but Lyn Gunter, the former mayor of fire-ravagedMurrindindi was "stunned" by the decision.

"There will be a backlash in Victoria, if not around Australia,"she said.

The regulator and SP AusNet have stressed it is early days yet:the draft ruling has yet to be formalized and consultations willcontinue until September 12. Any request from SP AusNet to pushthrough price increases can be rejected if the company is found atfault for the bushfires.

The decision follows a Victoria Police report to the state coronerthat found SP AusNet's electricity assets were likely to blame forthe Murrindindi fire, which was originally considered suspiciousand therefore not investigated by the Victorian Bushfires RoyalCommission.

SP AusNet has denied responsibility for the blazes. It says it'snot yet clear whether its insurance is sufficient.

The adjuster cap and brake cable can slide out of position andmake the brakes non-operational. This can cause a rider to losecontrol of the bicycle and crash.

Specialized Bicycle is aware of one incident worldwide in whichthe rider lost the function of both brakes. The firm has receivedno reports of injury or property damage.

This recall includes Tektro TL-83 brake levers sold on 2012 S-Works Shiv bicycle frame modules, 2012 S-Works Shiv TT bicycleframe modules, and sold as aftermarket service parts for thesemodules. The TL-83 is a version of the TL-720 brake lever,modified with a quick release slot at the top of the lever arm anddesigned exclusively for use with aerodynamic handlebars(aerobars) sold as original equipment on these modules. They areblack aluminum and model number "TL-720" can be read on the sideof the lever arm when braking action is applied. Pictures of therecalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold atauthorized Specialized Bicycle Components retailers from May 2011to June 2012. The bicycle frame modules sold for between $5,500and $6,100. The brake levers sold for about $80 as service parts.

Consumers should immediately stop riding modules equipped with TL-83 brake levers and return the levers or modules to an authorizedSpecialized Bicycle Components retailer for free replacement brakelevers. For more information and to find the nearest authorizedSpecialized Bicycle Components retailer, contact Specializedcustomer service between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific TimeMonday through Friday at (877) 808-8154 or visit the firm's Website at http://www.specialized.com/

SPOKANE PRODUCE: Recalls Pineapple/Mango Pico de Gallo Product--------------------------------------------------------------Spokane Produce, Inc., is voluntarily recalling a small lot run ofPineapple/Mango Pico de Gallo because it has the potential to becontaminated with Salmonella braenderup.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimesfatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, andothers with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infectedwith Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may bebloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rarecircumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in theorganism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severeillnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),endocarditis and arthritis.

The recall only includes 128/16ounce plastic containers of therefrigerated Pineapple/Mango Pico de Gallo with the UPC code"8869483987" under the brand labels Garden Patch or Yoke's.

The product was distributed to 11 inland northwest supermarkets inWashington, Idaho and Montana.

The Pineapple/Mango Pico de Gallo includes mangoes of the Daniellabrand that is being recalled by the supplier due to the potentialcontamination with Salmonella.

Out of an abundance of caution, as a service to the generalconsuming public at large, all product is being recalled inconsultation with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Noillnesses have been reported.

Consumers who purchased the recalled Pineapple/Mango Pico de Galloare advised not to eat any product with a date for use on orbefore 9/10/12 and destroy or return the product to the place ofpurchase.

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Recalls 600,700 Mr. Coffee Single Cup Brewers---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, incooperation with Sunbeam Products Inc., d/b/a Jarden ConsumerSolutions ("JCS"), of Boca Raton, Florida, announced a voluntaryrecall of about 520,000 units of Mr. Coffee(R) Single Cup BrewingSystem in the United States of America and 80,700 units in Canada.Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unlessotherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt toresell a recalled consumer product.

A build-up of steam in the water reservoir can force the brewingchamber open and expel hot coffee grounds and water, posing a burnhazard.

JCS has received 164 reports of the brewing chamber opening due tosteam pressure, including approximately 59 reports in the U.S. andtwo in Canada of burn injuries to consumers' face, upper torso andhands.

The recalled coffeemaker comes in black with silver, red or whitetrim. It stands about 11 inches tall and has a Brew Now /Offbutton and a removable drip tray. The water tank is located ontop of the unit towards the back. The model number is printed onthe bottom of the brewer. Recalled model numbers are:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by massmerchandisers nationwide, including Bed Bath & Beyond, Brandsmart,JC Penney, Kmart, Lowe's, Target and Walmart, and online atwww.mrcoffee.com from September 2010 through August 2012 forbetween $60 and $80.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled coffee brewerand contact JCS to receive instructions on how to obtain a freereplacement unit. For additional information, contact JCS at(800) 993-8609 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site athttp://www.mrcoffeerecall.com/

Contact with the inflatable tube can result in severe skinirritation or burns.

Tractor Supply has received 21 reports of consumers receivingsevere skin irritation or burns while using the tubes. Sevenpeople sought medical attention for their injuries.

The recalled tubes are made of gray rubber and measure 47 inchesin diameter. Model number "1026192" can be found on the box alongwith UPC code 4939403118 and the words "Traveller RecreationalTube." Product number "11.00R22" can be found molded into thetube itself. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and soldexclusively at Tractor Supply Stores nationwide from May 2012through June 2012 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and return itto any Tractor Supply Store for a full refund. For additionalinformation, contact Tractor Supply toll free at (877) 872-7721between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central Time any day, or visit thefirm's Web site athttp://www.tractorsupply.com/TravellerTireRecall/

US BANCORP: Discloses $65-Mil. Liability in Visa Litigation-----------------------------------------------------------U.S. Bancorp disclosed in its August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended June 30, 2012, that the carrying amount of its liabilityrelated to the Visa Litigation matters was $65 million andincludes its estimate of its share of the temporary reduction ininterchange rates specified in the memorandum of understandingagreement related to the litigation.

The Company's payment services business issues and acquires creditand debit card transactions through the Visa U.S.A. Inc. cardassociation or its affiliates (collectively "Visa"). In 2007,Visa completed a restructuring and issued shares of Visa Inc.common stock to its financial institution members in contemplationof its initial public offering ("IPO") completed in the firstquarter of 2008 (the "Visa Reorganization"). As a part of theVisa Reorganization, the Company received its proportionate numberof shares of Visa Inc. common stock, which were subsequentlyconverted to Class B shares of Visa Inc. ("Class B shares"). VisaU.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and MasterCard International(collectively, the "Card Associations"), are defendants inantitrust lawsuits challenging the practices of the CardAssociations (the "Visa Litigation"). Visa U.S.A. member bankshave a contingent obligation to indemnify Visa Inc. under the VisaU.S.A. bylaws (which were modified at the time of therestructuring in October 2007) for potential losses arising fromthe Visa Litigation. The indemnification by the Visa U.S.A.member banks has no specific maximum amount.

Using proceeds from its IPO and through reductions to theconversion ratio applicable to the Class B shares held by VisaU.S.A. member banks, Visa Inc. has funded an escrow account forthe benefit of member financial institutions to fund theirindemnification obligations associated with the Visa Litigation.The receivable related to the escrow account is classified inother liabilities as a direct offset to the related VisaLitigation contingent liability.

On July 13, 2012, Visa signed a memorandum of understanding toenter into a settlement agreement to resolve class action claimsassociated with the multi-district interchange litigation (the"MOU agreement"), the largest of the remaining Visa Litigationmatters. At June 30, 2012, the carrying amount of the Company'sliability related to the Visa Litigation matters, net of its shareof the escrow fundings, was $65 million and includes the Company'sestimate of its share of the temporary reduction in interchangerates specified in the MOU agreement. The remaining Class Bshares held by the Company will be eligible for conversion toClass A shares, and thereby become marketable, upon settlement ofthe Visa Litigation.

WPX ENERGY: Royalty Interest Owners Suit Pending in New Mexico--------------------------------------------------------------WPX Energy, Inc. continues to defend a lawsuit brought on behalfof a potential class of royalty interest owners in New Mexico andColorado, according to the Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended June 30, 2012.

In October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners inNew Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against the Company inthe County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint allegesfailure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including drip condensate,fraud and misstatement of the value of gas and affiliated sales,breach of duty to market hydrocarbons, violation of the New MexicoOil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, bad faith breach of contract andunjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and adeclaratory judgment enjoining activities relating to production,payments and future reporting. This matter has been removed tothe United States District Court for New Mexico.

At this time, the Company believes that its royalty calculationshave been properly determined in accordance with the appropriatecontractual arrangements and applicable laws. The Company doesnot have sufficient information to calculate an estimated range ofexposure related to these claims.

WPX ENERGY: Still Defends Suits Related to Gas Price Indices------------------------------------------------------------WPX Energy, Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuitsalleging manipulation of published gas price indices, according tothe Company's August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,2012.

Civil lawsuits based on allegations of manipulating published gasprice indices have been brought against the Company and others,seeking unspecified amounts of damages. The Company is currentlya defendant in class action litigation and other litigationoriginally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri andWisconsin brought on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers ofnatural gas in those states. These cases were transferred to thefederal court in Nevada. In 2008, the court granted summaryjudgment in the Colorado case in favor of the Company and most ofthe other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack of standing. OnJanuary 8, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs' request forreconsideration of the Colorado dismissal and entered judgment inthe Company's favor. When a final order is entered against theone remaining defendant, the Colorado plaintiffs may appeal theorder.

In the other cases, on July 18, 2011, the Nevada district courtgranted the Company's joint motions for summary judgment topreclude the plaintiffs' state law claims because the federalNatural Gas Act gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission("FERC") exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those issues. Thecourt also denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion asmoot. The plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Because of the uncertainty around pending unresolved issues,including an insufficient description of the purported classes andother related matters, the Company says it cannot reasonablyestimate a range of potential exposures at this time. However, itis reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these itemscould result in future charges that may be material to theCompany's results of operations.

WPX ENERGY: To Litigate Royalty Interest Suit's 2nd Claim in 2013-----------------------------------------------------------------WPX Energy, Inc. disclosed in its August 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended June 30, 2012, that the second reserved claim in the classaction lawsuit pending in Colorado will be litigated next year.

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,Colorado, filed a class action lawsuit in the District Court,Garfield County, Colorado, alleging the Company improperlycalculated oil and gas royalty payments, failed to account forproceeds received from the sale of natural gas and extractedproducts, improperly charged certain expenses and failed to refundamounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations.Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of royalty interest owners,recover underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected paymentsresulting from calculation errors. The Company entered into afinal, partial settlement agreement. The partial settlementagreement defined the class for certification, resolved claimsrelating to past calculation of royalty and overriding royaltypayments, established certain rules to govern future royalty andoverriding royalty payments, resolved claims related to pastwithholding for ad valorem tax payments, established a procedurefor refunds of any such excess withholding in the future, andreserved two claims for court resolution. The Company hasprevailed at the trial court and all levels of appeal on the firstreserved claim regarding whether it is allowed to deduct mainlinepipeline transportation costs pursuant to certain leaseagreements. The remaining claim is whether the Company isrequired to have proportionately increased the value of naturalgas by transporting that gas on mainline transmission lines and,if required, whether it did so and are entitled to deduct aproportionate share of transportation costs in calculating royaltypayments.

The Company anticipates litigating the second reserved claim in2013. The Company believes its royalty calculations have beenproperly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractualarrangements and Colorado law. At this time, the plaintiffs havenot provided the Company a sufficient framework to calculate anestimated range of exposure related to their claims.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter Chapmanat 240/629-3300.